Subscribe

January 13, 2015

Challenge: No Scientific Consensus on When Human Life Begins

This challenge comes from the first item in the Pro-Choice Action Network’s article refuting “some common misconceptions about abortion”:

Human life begins at conception.There is no scientific consensus as to when human life begins. It is a matter of philosophic opinion or religious belief. Human life is a continuum—sperm and eggs are also alive, and represent potential human beings, but virtually all sperm and eggs are wasted. Also, two-thirds of human conceptions are spontaneously aborted by nature.

What mistakes are made here? How would you argue that we can objectively know when a new human being comes into existence? Answer this challenge in the comments below, and then we’ll hear Alan’s answer on Thursday.

Comments

Since there's supposedly no consensus, one's view could be mistaken which means abortion could be destroying a valuable human being. So we should err on the side of caution and not destroy the potentially valuable unborn through abortion.

I paused at this point to evaluate its truthfulness. As living things undergo a series of life processes (e.g. respiration, reproduction, elimination, digestion), sperm and egg of themselves cannot qualify as de facto living things.

Also, the wasting of sperm and egg seems to be aside of the issue. The essential point is the status of fertilized eggs (zygotes) and the development beyond that point.

>> two-thirds of human conceptions are spontaneously aborted by nature.

You can tell how desperate the other side is by needing to deny such simple science and logic.

"Human life is a continuum—sperm and eggs are also alive, and represent potential human beings, but virtually all sperm and eggs are wasted."

Question 1: What results from the mating of a male and female of the same species?

If you answer "not something of the same species", then high school diplomas need to be revoked. I know this isn't a very charitable or christian attitude, and I need God's grace to overcome it, but it's so hard to not mock these attitudes.

The problem has never been "we can't kill it because it is alive". It's "we can't kill it because it is a human being."

"Also, two-thirds of human conceptions are spontaneously aborted by nature."

Question 2: If a member of a species dies, is it therefore (retroactively) not a member of that species?

If you starve to death, are you not a human being any more? If I kill you, were you therefore not a human being with rights?

"I paused at this point to evaluate its truthfulness. As living things undergo a series of life processes (e.g. respiration, reproduction, elimination, digestion), sperm and egg of themselves cannot qualify as de facto living things"
So life creates non-life to make life? I think rather than sperm and egg are alive.

">> two-thirds of human conceptions are spontaneously aborted by nature.

And the other third is terminated by death. Your point is?"

I think the point is that if one argues that life starts at conception (I've heard it argued so and additionally that that's when God puts a soul in place) then God kills off these little humans before they have had much of a chance. SO if you are defending human life from the point of conception then the biggest killer is god, not abortion. I think thats the argument here.

There are the common observations regarding how we distinguish one life from another. For example, we can note that the DNA differs. This is a good argument, but it's not enough on its own because there are instances where one person might have different DNA in their body that doesn't comprise life. There are such things as blood transfusions, which are temporary, organ transplants which are intended to be permanent, and there are also people who are chimeras where one person has DNA from twin siblings who grew together as one individual in the womb.

Therefore, the argument from DNA should entail a normal reproductive cycle where the separate DNA is following a pattern of growth into a distinct individual. This is still rather weak because it can be construed as an arbitrary distinction by a non-theist.

I'm going to offer another argument here, one that I don't often hear. It trades on the notion that human life is particularly valuable. If science has no consensus on when human life begins, then if human life is valuable, if there is any doubt whether a human being is truly human in any part of his or her formative growth, then it should be wise to err on the side of caution. That is to say that we shouldn't want to kill a preborn baby if there is any thought that it might constitute human life. Why take the chance that you might be killing a living human being? One can't appeal to science for justification of abortion if there is no scientific consensus.

One other thing. The argument by this individual relies on "nature". If it is observed that "nature" spontaneously aborts, then we can also observe that "nature" also carries babies to full term. That is to say that one can't make a case for unnatural abortion if one appeals to nature. If nature is truly the deciding factor here, then we should leave it up to nature as to whether a baby makes it to term or not rather than artificially causing abortion.

The only way to defeat my last two arguments is to completely subjectivize the ethics surrounding the taking of human life. But that means that human life can be taken arbitrarily with no ethical recourse. The only thing it can rely on (other than the recognition that there is a Creator who has sole say in the ethics of abortion) is sociological consensus, which we obviously don't have either despite Roe vs Wade.

In a philosophic or religious discussion, the concept of “life” may take on qualities that are not scientifically discernable. However, in a scientific discussion, the qualities that distinguish life from unlife are measurable and verifiable. The continuum of life for a human being begins at fertilization – that is a scientific fact for which there is consensus.

The basic function of government is to protect the sanctity and dignity of life for its citizens. If the scientific sense of the word life is not applied here, then to which philosophy or religion should the government adhere? And what to do with those citizens whose philosophies or religions attribute personhood at an earlier stage than the government? This is the situation that we are in. Christians are being pushed, prodded, and trapped into participating in acts that they consider murder.

Furthermore, the Pro-Choice Action Network should consider the potential danger to future generations of relegating the definition of life to the government’s discretion. Perhaps the next generation’s philosophic understanding of life excludes the mentally challenged in addition to the unborn. Maybe the elderly will soon be viewed as not “really” alive. We can prevent untold misery by establishing the strictest possible understanding of life to include every stage and form of human life for which the preservation thereof is practicably enforceable.

Only what has already been said. If there's no scientific consensus ("we don't know"), then the wise and responsible path would be to err on the side of caution, not to run wild until someone tells us to stop.

If I think there might be a child behind my car, I don't put it into reverse and stomp on the gas in the name of not having a scientific consensus. I err on the side of safety and get out to check before backing up slowly.

The Rational Skeptic among us seems to believe that sperm and ovum are indeed living things. That might be true in a colloquial sense, but not a biological one.

"Life" or "Living beings" have certain attributes that are widely accepted among biologists. Three of those characteristics are: 1) the ability to take in energy from the environment and transform it into usable energy by the organism. Sperm meets this requirement as it takes in fructose contained in the semen and transform this to ATP. Ovum do not. 2) Living organisms have the ability to grow. Neither sperm nor ovum have this characteristic. 3) Living organisms can reproduce. Neither sperm nor ovum can reproduce another cell like themselves. They require the other to produce (not reproduce) an organism that is much more complex.

So based on these generally accepted characteristics, the egg and ovum cannot be considered living things in the same sense that human beings, apple trees, or a virus can be.

I concede to your point made. If categorized as living (tree)//dead (severed branch)// non-living (the air that circulated about tree and branch), then you are absolutely correct. I have a difficulty only in this area, as the expression "sperm and eggs are also alive, and represent potential human beings." The term "alive" suggests ideas of sentience and purposefulness, as if the sperm was intelligently "looking for some action." I would have preferred the terms "living" or "functional. I would be puzzled at the notion of a "dead" eye or ear. Body parts transcend ideas of life beyond the whole body.

>> SO if you are defending human life from the point of conception then the biggest killer is god, not abortion. I think thats [sic] the argument here.

Again, is God a killer of the centenarian who dies in peace in the middle of the night. Life as a continuum must have a beginning and an end. A theist has the advantage of seeing God as the Author of Life, and the only one to withdraw this grant. Life has elements of difficulty in all phases. A miscarriage is but one of these elements. The distinction of the newborn and the pre-born are slight in the matter of mortality. The disruption of the continuum occurs, but to speak of a continuum demands that we are clear of the beginning as well as the end. That is most consistent if we trace it back fully to the creation of the zygote. That's page one, and time determines the final page.

Jeff is right on this one. Life can be draw back to its moment of origin. We need to err on the side of caution in support of sanctity of life, which can develop under natural directions. To moan about the waste and possible threat of ending life's development before birth only blurs the central point of "scientific consensus."

This is an unsupported assertion. The skeptic should at least provide examples of scientists giving differing opinions as to when science says that life begins.

I'm skeptical that there are any.

The other points about sperm and eggs being alive, and that two thirds of conceived babies die naturally are but red herrings. So what? What is the bearing on whether or not certain living humans should be allowed to be killed at the hands of other humans?

Let's look at what all scientists will agree on. Is a grown living adult an individual human being? I can't see how any scientist could disagree. But how about a toddler? Do we all agree that she/he is an individual human being? Yes? ...but do all scientist agree? Well, we know that there are some that would question their status as fully valued human beings. So what does that tell us about scientific consensus? And how "important" is that consensus for a agreed upon definition? The majority of scientists views the fetal stage as developmental stage of a human being and not a potential human being. The same is true for an infant and the same is true for an embryo. Now pro choice advocates will throw in an argument about zygotes or implantation vs conception, but not because to present where science disagrees on what is considered what, but to avoid to look at what they pretty much all agree on. Yes, when it comes to abortifications/the pill, it's a valid question/concern that deserves an answer. But it doesn't matter in the abortion choice vs life debate. We do not elect to abort zygote stage beings. We elect to abort embryo and/or fetus stage beings. And science is pretty clear on the fact that it's human beings we are talking about at that point. ....

>> SO if you are defending human life from the point of conception then the biggest killer is god, not abortion. I think thats the argument here.

Two things. First, God does not cause the death of the unborn in that case. Just like God does not cause anyone's death. It's the fallen nature of the world (natural evil) that causes death. If we were to apply this moral standard to humans, it would be very problematic. Anyone who didn't try to prevent the deaths of others might be liable to be called a murderer!

Secondly, the Christian faith teaches that God has defeated death on the cross. So, not only does God not cause death, he has also saved us from it.

"It's the fallen nature of the world (natural evil) that causes death"

That doesnt make much sense? Why does God allow these embryos to die?

I mean, he *could* keep them alive if he wanted - he's omnipotent isnt he? And thats why he has a different standard to a human - its very difficult for a human to prevent death, but very easy for God.

Not true. Life begins at fertilization with the embryo’s conception. We know a human embryo is a human life. Lying is not the best way to start off a challenge considering this is a well documented scientific fact. If the challenger doesn't like embryology, all they need is Google.

If they really want to talk science, there is no scientific consensus that human life is even valuable. What sort of scientific evidence would the challenger put forth to say that life is valuable?

Human life is a continuum—sperm and eggs are also alive, and represent potential human beings, but virtually all sperm and eggs are wasted.

Life is a continuum? What? So I assume the challenger has that coveted scientific consensus on the “continuum of life”? A life with no beginning and no end perhaps? Nice. Zero points for facts. 100 points for ignorance.

As for "potential human being," a man and a woman trapped in an elevator equal a potential 3rd human being. The fact is, there are human beings and there are things that aren’t human beings. Potential human beings are not human beings. Human embryos are not potential human beings. They are potential toddlers, teens, and senior citizens. Unless we kill them early, of course.

Also, two-thirds of human conceptions are spontaneously aborted by nature.

We all die. Therefore we are not human beings. I didn’t say that, but the challenger did.

Also, two-thirds of human conceptions are spontaneously aborted by nature.

You wrote:

SO if you are defending human life from the point of conception then the biggest killer is god, not abortion. I think thats the argument here.

I don’t think that’s the argument. It may be yours, but it’s not the challengers. The challenger wants to convince us that because so many lives never live the life the challenger sees fit for value, then there’s obviously no value.

Some embryos are never born, never get married, never get a job, never buy a boat, etc. therefore, they’re worthless.

As it relates to your argument: about God being the biggest killer….what if He is? How does that change the value of human life - specifically embryos?

"Life begins at fertilization with the embryo’s conception. We know a human embryo is a human life. Lying is not the best way to start off a challenge considering this is a well documented scientific fact."

I think thats the point. This isnt a well documented scientific fact. It's a bit rough to accuse people of lying. So I just took *your* advicde and used google to see where I could find an answer - this looked like a scientific answer http://blogs.plos.org/dnascience/2013/10/03/when-does-a-human-life-begins-17-timepoints/

So its far from a scientific fact that life starts at fertilisation

Second, why would science have anything to say on the value of a human life? I dont think science is equipped to answer such a question.

Third, if you say life begins at conception, then why does God allow 2/3 of conceptions to terminate? BTW, that is the common argument. Its not to do with value at all. They aren't saying human life isnt valuable - they're simply saying that its a little bit more complicated than "No Abortion" - the black and white answer you favour.

If you argue against ANY kind of abortion post fertilisation, pre Viability, then one has to ask why God doesnt save all these little souls. To give god a pass or to hand wave it off as evil is merely to ignore the issue surely?

KWM brings up a point that a lot of pro lifers seem to be not prepared for. Moving the bar. We always try to get to the point that a fetus is a human being. But quite often, that argument is just now just acknowledged. "Yes I agree it's a human being. So what? It still doesn't have the right to use a woman's body against her will...end of discussion". We need to be prepared to answer this. "New" atheists like Dillahunty will throw out the human being argument like yesterday's old news. And so will the atheist who listens to him. Would be nice if STR could help us to be prepared for this challenge. ...

Right KWM, and getting messier with the likes of Tim NBD muddying the waters with straw man christianity puzzles. Along with that, I dont know what search terms he entered that yeilded a blog post, but I googled zygote and the first result...Wikipedia[suprise, suprise] within the first few sentences had this:

"In multicellular organisms, a zygote is always synthesized from the union of two gametes, and constitutes the first stage in a unique organism's development."

Tim NBD, if you want to engage Christians in a discussion and then, propose how God's involvement enters into that discussion, you will most certainly have to argue within the Christian view of God...otherwise you are just question begging by assuming your own ill informed view of God and the world we experience.

Hi Volker, the what is it? is all that is needed...even in the case of the against the will regarding the womans body argument.

Hi Volker, one other thing I'd add...if the atheists you worry about deny the value of allhuman life, they have no justification to also claim that murder of any human is wrong. You will certainly find some who will go so far, but their extremism will be obvious to any who witness such inhumanity being proposed.

If you consider that your next day depends on your survival today and that to take away your future days unjustifiably is something most societies rightfully call murder.

Now, at what point going backwards is it ok to unjustifiably take away your future days? Everyone who survives the womb necessarily depended on their survival along their own developmental stages...all the way back to single cell.

Single cell Volker is the same unique organism...per Wiki quote above...as the Volker typing away at keyboard for STR blog posts...that Volker did not receive anything but normal care and feeding...something we all require and cannot be legally deprived of...again, unjustifiably or else it's murder.

I agree with you that academic-type people are more willing to dismiss the rights of what they admit is human. First, because they don't even bother trying to deny the unborn are living humans anymore because there's no way around that and they know it. Second, because they don't believe in intrinsic human value and therefore have no solid grounding for human rights, so they're willing to deny the rights of some for the sake of those they think are more valuable. The person on the street, on the other hand, isn't thinking consistently. They still believe in universal human rights, even if they have no grounding for it because it's part of our cultural memory. For those, convincing them the unborn are human is very effective, so pro-lifers need to know about both approaches to arguing their position. We address both on the website. Here are some articles and posts that discuss the bodily rights argument:

Thank you Amy. I've read these articles before and, yes, they certainly help. But I'm not convinced that they are answering the challenge sufficiently. I believe that a drastic exposure what's really proposed by them ( abandoning intrinsic value, again, in favor of pragmatism, like it was in the case of slavery and the Holocaust), is needed in order to answer this. I know that pro choice is not pro slavery or even pro choice slavery. But if the reasons for excusing them become one and the same, then we should be pointing that out, or?

I googled "when does human life begin" and the url I posted is the 7th result for me.

The question was when does HUMAN life begin - the question is whether a zygote is a human life. You argue that is is and that science agrees with you, and I'm merely pointing out that actually that isnt the case.

As to strawman views of christianity - I am erecting no such objects. Im just asking reasonable questions. SO once again, if life starts at fertilization, then why does god abort 2/3 of them, or at least allow this to happen.

Maybe I need to confirm whether you think God is omnipotent - I mean, if he wanted it so, he could keep these embryos alive couldnt he?

"The question was when does HUMAN life begin - the question is whether a zygote is a human life"

Were you a HUMAN life yesterday? I'm asking about the organism that goes by the handle Tim NBD here. What about the day before?

Where, going back into time, do you stop claiming that you were/are a human life? When did the unique organism we know today as Tim NBD first begin his physical life process? [maybe refer to the Wiki quote?]

You'll have to ask God why...I am not he. Why does He allow any other premature deaths...same question/riddle...is that reasonable?

Let’s compare sources. Let everyone compare the sources that say human life begins at conception vs. those sources that say it doesn’t. See who comes out on top. To even debate this is foolish - so I'll stop.

But still – a decreasing (fortunately) number of people bury their heads in the sand because they hold abortion so near and dear to their hearts.

Perhaps folks like Tim NBD are quick to say the science is settled on evolution despite any differing opinions. Why is that the case? Why the picking and choosing? It’s simple. Because we always look for ways to justify our behavior and our beliefs.

A more harsh judgment on abortion is: They’ll cling to anything to justify of the killing. When they couldn’t anymore, they just denied the value of that specific human being in that particular state.

That’s where the abortion advocates are now: It’s alive. It’s a human being. But we should be able to kill it if we like. Because choice.

Sperm and egg are not living any more that our individual blood cells are living. If sperm and egg were living we'd have the life cycles of a fern. Every other generation is a fern, and in between those are diploid spores who then 'give birth' to the fern plant. Out sperm and eggs are haploid. Who ever uttered this is some one who doesn't even have a elementary knowledge of science.

Actually, the characteristics are not "mine", they are accepted characteristics within my field, Biology. There are, however, differences in how biologists apply these characteristics. You are correct that viruses do not meet criteria #2. Thus, many biologists do not consider viruses to be living organisms. I am one of those biologists. So this leaves us with the view that sperm/ovum are much like viruses. Since viruses are not living organisms, sperm and ovum are not living organisms either.

Now colloquially, we often speak about viruses in much the same way we speak about bacteria, which are living organisms, so outside of biology, viruses are understood to be living organisms. But again, they just don't have the generally accepted characteristics of living organisms, and so cannot be classified as a living organisms unless one wishes to apply the criteria inconsistently.

Remarkable then that Brian thinks that viruses have a metabolism. Nor do viruses 'grow'. They do reproduce, via a host cell. SO actually I was saying that you were only 1 from 3 in your own criteria, yet you still claimed viruses were alive while sperm and egg are not.

"Since viruses are not living organisms, sperm and ovum are not living organisms either." Eh? Viruses and sperm egg are utterly different things.

Sperm and egg and cells are alive and form part of the continuum of life, which is complicated and resists easy pigeon holing.

So KWM, we could start comparing sources. And what we will find is that there is no consensus on when human life begins.

A single cell =/= (does not equal) human life. Its on the developmental pathway granted. But there is not a scientific consensus.

Fine and well Tim NBD...in these kind of discussions making distinctions is how one gets to the nitty gritty of what can be considered knowledge. You seem to saying that if KWM wants to compare sources this will turn into a head counting exercise to prove what is actually the case.

If so, are you banking on winning the argument of what "consensus" means by head count, or are we trying to determine that a zygote is in fact a human life?

If the former, why bother...what would be the point?

If the latter, get to it, please consider my earlier question to you as to when going backward in time, would it have been ok to disregard your own stage of developement as not human.

Tim NBD probably knows he’s being silly. It is a head counting exercise (one that he’d lose of course).

As it relates to “consensus,” you could probably find folks that don’t believe Wednesday comes after Tuesday. Just as you can find real doctors that disagree with evidence-based medicine, etc. Ooh, no consensus!

But seriously, what does this tell us about Tim NBD? Probably that he’s not serious at all and that we shouldn’t take his comments seriously either.

"Fine and well Tim NBD...in these kind of discussions making distinctions is how one gets to the nitty gritty of what can be considered knowledge"

Actually I think that people want to use knowledge for their own ends. We know what the developmental pathway is for a human - what it seems YOU want to do is define an exact moment that human life starts because it suits your argument.

You want me to retrace my own existence back to stage where it "would it have been ok to disregard your own stage of developement as not human?"

I think there is a big difference between saying "a human life begins at fertilization" (incorrect) and "the developmental pathway for a new human life begins at fertilization" (accurate)

Lets go back to the original challenge "No Scientific Consensus on When Human Life Begins"

"Life does not begin at conception. It’s an utterly nonsensical position to take. There is never a “dead” phase — life is continuous. Sperm are alive, eggs are alive; you could even make the argument that since two cells (gametes) enter, but only one cell (a zygote) leaves, fertilization ends a life. Not that I would make that particular claim myself, but it’s definitely true that life is more complicated than the simplistic ideologues of the anti-choice movement would make it"

Note the bit about Sperm and eggs being alive also.

And still no-ones answered my reasonable question about God allowing the abortion of 2/3 of - what you term - human lives. :(

Tim NBD, a sperm is not a whole human organism organized towards developing throughout its life cycle in the pattern of human organisms. It comes from a whole human organism, yes, but it's not itself a complete human organism any more than any other cell in our body is a whole, distinct human. Likewise, an egg is not a whole human organism. A zygote, on the other hand, is a whole human organism in the earliest stage. It's a different human organism from the two human organisms that supplied the parts to create it. It has its own unique DNA (which will then be reflected in its own parts) and a gender. From that point forward, it develops as a separate, complete entity.

You say "life is continuous," but human life is not continuous. First you have a cell from one human life, then it combines with another from someone else's life to create a third whole human life. That organism isn't a piece of a human working together with other pieces. It is a whole organism.

As for God not preventing all miscarriages, the fact that people die on their own (born and unborn) and God does not prevent it has no bearing on whether or not it's okay for us to kill them.

"Of course you did Brad, it supports what you say. Confirmation bias."

Ok, fine example of ad homenim dismissal...not one challenge to the information found there.

"Fine and well Tim NBD...in these kind of discussions making distinctions is how one gets to the nitty gritty of what can be considered knowledge"

"Actually I think that people want to use knowledge for their own ends. We know what the developmental pathway is for a human - what it seems YOU want to do is define an exact moment that human life starts because it suits your argument."

Well, this seems to go well with the previous ad hom dismissal. More detail here though...this may be what you, Tim NBD think, it may even be how you, Tim NBD reason to conclusions, but rational people are not so easily carried away from sound logical analysis/inquiry in the search for truth. It may seem foreign to you, but when I see the scientific findings reveal that from the gametes of 2 separate individuals the resulting zygote has distinct DNA, is considered a new organism, [as Amy pointed out in response] and if left undisturbed will follow the normal life cycle of a human...well then I am bound by logical necessity to the conclusion that life begins a conception...regardless what I want or feel about it.

"You want me to retrace my own existence back to stage where it "would it have been ok to disregard your own stage of developement as not human?" I think there is a big difference between saying "a human life begins at fertilization" (incorrect) and "the developmental pathway for a new human life begins at fertilization" (accurate)"

Ok, more clarity on how Tim NBD reasons...starts to look a little like ToNy here by making a distinction where there is no difference...but then also offers italicized verdicts to boot! I have to ask why? What could possibly be the point of making this distinction other than trying to confuse the opposition by wordsmithery.

Even if you hold to this distinction, where does it get you in my question regarding your own developemental pathway? Your future days depended on the survival of zygote Tim NBD, no matter what you want to call the single cell Tim NBD's existence. Similarly, your future days depended on the survival of 2 cell embryo Tim NBD...and on an on til todays version of Tim NBD's tomorrow depend on his survival today. If any of your tomorrows along the way are/were unjustifiably taken from you the result is no different at any day from conception on.

There is a continuity of being in the life cycle of human beings that you cannot deny rationally. I wonder how rational you are though.